Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1887-07-08

4 recent order Of the interior de
putmcnt withdrew from the Man
itoba railway company large tracts
al lands which were held 10y that com
pany under the title OF indemnity
lands. The railroad company of course
objected to this order and demanded
from Secretary Lamar stay of pro-
ccedings, and j. ". Reynolds, state
agent for Minnesota in the matter of
the rights of settlers, went To Wash
ngtun, and in IN argument before the
department showed good and sufficient
cause why the stay of proceedings de
manded should not be granted. The
following extract from the argument
OF MIR. REYNOLDS shows some of the
evils resulting from the practice of
needlessly withholding from settle
meut for many years large tracts of
so-ealled indemnity lands
The indemnity lands of Minnesota
have been on the average withdrawn
from settlement for more than twenty
wears. What is the result: 1t Is as
grave as il is astonishing. During all
this time, under the rulings and prac-
tees of the department, regardless of
whether the companies had even an
expected right to the lands or ghost
of u chance to acquire them, no settlers
could make any filings or acquire any
rights Ia the lands, they could not
and cannot now littgate IN the depart
mrnt or elsewhere with the companies
the question of title thereto. Orders
of withdrawal are IN absolute bar to
the acquisition of any rights in that
land hy settler and divrSt the depart
ment of any and all jurisdiction to
entertain any appeal from the reJee-
ton of preferred filings, or to in any
manner try or inquire into this claim
of the settlers thereon. | doubt
whether in the execution of the laws
OF the country any instance So nearly
approaching uureStrained tyranny y
can be found. Not only is the prog
ress and prosperity of the state re
tlrded and iniuriously affected, but
the hands of the settler are ST tied
that they cannot he raised in his own
defense and his mouth closed 81 that
he cannot speak in his own behalf.
Here Is class of citizens who cannot
he heard in their own behalf and who
have not their "dav in court The
administration that correctS this scan
dalous abuse, will deserve, and sin
cerely hope, win the applause and
lasting gratitude of the people. The
companies cannot argue rs an excuse
for the failure to make selections that
they did not know what lands to take.
The lands having been given these
companies as a donation. II is their
duty to search out their lands for Sc
lections. II was for the companies
to Judge which of the settlers claims
were valid and to what lands they had
title. The government did not war,
rant title to these lands. There is no
authority for the withdrawal of indem-
nitv lands. under the law of 1887
the indemnity lands in Minnesota
must have been chosen within the
fifteen mile limit coterminous with
each twenty-mile section of the road
built. That the present owners OF
this system of road are now in de-
fault Is the accepted doctrine of this
department Would not a restoration
of these lands in effect be the taking
possession, directly under the authority
of the government, of the heaviest
grant, and be in fact an equivalent OF
declaration of forfeiture as to the
indemnity lands. The settlers on these
lands, who have to the number 81
hundreds, brought their appeal to this
department, have a cause worthy &
be heard on its merits. There an
valid adverse claims to these lands